Haiti's earthquake rocked an already desperately impoverished population, which was brought to American television screens via the mass media machine. Transforming disaster into spectacle and spectacle into entertainment, the media machine solicits our donations to contribute much needed humanitarian aid. Having contributed our monetary donation, the Haiti catastrophe quickly slips from our minds only to be replaced by the next disaster cycle. When do we start addressing the real systemic issues that developing countries face, or are we content with reactionary disaster mitigation?
A massive 7.0 magnitude earthquake and its subsequent aftershocks rocked Port-au-Prince on January 12, 2010. The tiny island state notorious for its lack of infrastructure, soaring unemployment, corrupt government, and low human development was devastated, with hundreds of thousands dead and/or missing, not to mention the one million Haitians left homeless. Meanwhile in America, the media swarmed, flashes of death and starving children ran 24/7, the UN debated a concise course of action, wallets opened frantically, and promises of mass international aid ensued. News celebrities like Anderson Cooper rushed to bring the American public live video feeds of looting and dead corpses, while others like Dr. Sanjay Gupta conducted field medicine during video shoots. As a result, the incessant coverage successfully seared and sensationalized the Haiti earthquake disaster into the American public’s mind.
So we greedily consume images of other’s suffering in order to enter into an imagined solidarity with those of the Third World. In pretending to understand and empathize with the magnitude of their tragedy we assuage the guilt of our privileged position through copious monetary donations. People donate in mass quantities to organizations like the Red Cross and trusts like the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. The horrific images from dysfunctional countries and the realization of our elevated economic position that allow us to donate remind us that we are dissimilar from the Third World, and reinforce our esteemed dominate position as the sole superpower. We feel good again having deposited our contribution, and give ourselves a “well-deserved” pat on the back. Now what? Enter again the ever-ready news media machine to fuel our addiction for a new cause to champion, and to further feed our fears that the world is falling apart at the seams. Thus, just as quickly as the earthquake disaster in Haiti occurred, it slips from our consciousness only to be replaced by the next sensational tsunami, earthquake, or conflict hot spot in any given Third World arena.
Eventually we become desensitized toward human suffering through the circulation of images by the mass media as the coverage becomes increasingly invasive. Disaster becomes spectacle, and spectacle becomes entertainment. What is not shown is the mundane reality that precedes and follows such catastrophes. The average American is not concerned about issues of Haiti’s in-country food production capabilities, fundamental earthquake resistant building regulations, or long-term basic literacy efforts that ultimately maintain the cycle of poverty. Should the news media not be held to an ethical professionalism of reporting and presenting issues of significance that do not reinforce apocalyptic views and enable an ADD plagued audience? Is entertainment based off of spectacle and disaster the sole driving force for news from the international spectrum? Rather, the mass media has a responsibility - because of its powerful ability to shape and manage American outlook on the Third World - to inform the public of events around the globe in a manner that reflects their true nature and significance, whether those events are sensational or not.
America is great at delivering immediate international humanitarian aid, and no one denies the significance or importance of these services at saving lives and mitigating disaster zones. However, what about the long-term systematic issues that are not as harrowing and sensational but still cost lives, livelihoods, and ensure continued poverty? If we truly feel solidarity with those who struggle in the Third World, then should we not work to alleviate their suffering from easily curable diseases that kill thousands or from something as fundamental to human existence as access to clean water? Are we actually committed to working with the people of countries like Haiti months after a disaster? What about five years down the road, when the persistent everyday issues that plague Haiti resurrect themselves in new forms of leadership, disease, and disaster? Will we commit to prevention and building better foundations or will the norm of operation always be emergency mitigation?